the
innovative LEDGER
An e-Newsletter from The Innovative Edge™ Inc.
Vol.
8, No. 3 - March 2008
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Is the Scientific Method Good for Your Health?
By Jeff Govendo
Recently,
a short letter to the editor of Time Magazine entitled "Healthy
Skepticism" caught my eye. In it, Paul FitzGerald, Ph.D., a research
scientist from U. Cal, Davis, commented on Time's obituary the previous
week of Dr. Judah Folkman, the renowned pediatric surgeon at Boston's
Children's Hospital, who died of a heart attack in January at the
age of 74.
Folkman,
who apparently had boundless energy until the day of his death (at
the Denver airport on his way to a conference), did surgery by day
and cancer research in his lab at night. His breakthrough theory,
first put forth in 1973, would change the course of cancer treatment.
It was that tumors depend on the formation of blood vessels to sustain
themselves (a process called angiogenesis), and that preventing such
blood vessel growth would starve and shrink the tumor. Based on
this, the field of anti-angiogenesis research and treatment developed,
which has resulted so far in 10 drug formulations proven highly effective
in the treatment of many forms of cancer. It is also being studied
as a way to combat chronic obesity.
The
obituary had noted that when Dr. Folkman first published his theory,
his peers roundly attacked or dismissed it. No one had ever conceptualized
cancer treatment this way before. Dr. FitzGerald, in his letter, stated
"such skepticism is commonly portrayed as a flaw, when in fact
it's the single most valuable skill we can bring to bear on our work....Good
scientists don't seek to prove a hypothesis true. We make every possible
effort to prove it wrong by subjecting it to the most withering attacks
we can dream up."
Dr.
FitzGerald is of course referring to the "scientific method"
of inquiry, which he rightly suggests can result in more robust
hypotheses, since they have managed to withstand severe scrutiny and
critcism. It is an absolutely necessary approach for investigating
and evaluating concepts in science, as well as other fields.
The
problem is that many of us use the scientific method whenever we’re
presented with new thinking, even at the front end of the innovation
process, where the goal is supposedly to come up with lots of new
ideas. Yet so often, our immediate response to something very "different"
is to point out what’s wrong. How often have we been told in
brainstorming sessions that “no idea is a bad idea,” only
to discover that the more unusual the offering, the more likely it
is to be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand? Even when this doesn’t
happen overtly, typically a brainstorming session concludes with a
process of eliminating those ideas that don’t fit the group’s
expectations or frame of reference. (Proving, in fact, that there
are bad ideas.)
Too
often, when presented with an idea that begs to be further explored
because it strays from the conventional, that’s when we’re
most likely to respond in the negative. There’s a time for this
type of response, but when we engage in it too early in the innovation
cycle, we lose potential breakthroughs and shut down creative thinking
too. Precise, scientific inquiry is by definition a limiting form
of thinking. It cuts us off from a world of possibilities if we insist
on doing it all the time.
Fortunately
for all of us, Dr. Folkman was undaunted by the attacks on his hypothesis
and continued his research with the support of his institution. The
truth of angiogenesis is now well established, lives have been extended
and saved, and Dr. Folkman’s work continues through his many
students and disciples.
Dr.
Judah Folkman, 1933-2008.
